tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX January 10, 2016 8:00am-9:00am CST
hello again from fox news in continue toss lead republicans nationally with rival ted cruz now in first place in iowa. on friday, i sat down with trump in his headquarters in new york city ease trump tower to discuss the campaign and his questioning whether cruz is eligible to be president. but we began with trump's special area of expertise -- money. mr. trump, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thank you. the stock market has dropped dramatically in recent days, in large part because of the fears about the chinese economy. what would president trump do about the markets? >> well, if they would have been listening to me over the last six year, we so tight into china, when china goes bag, we go bad. we're tied in to their advantage, not ours. we have to be smart. as you know, they want to continue to devalue the currency in order to devalue out, but what that's doing is stopping
compe with china and other places, including japan, which, by the way, is doing big devaluations not good for us. anytime you see these countries devaluing currency, that's a bad thing for us. china wants to do that again to get itself out of a probeen. as president, you said the other day you would impose a 45% tariff on all chinese goods coming into this country. wouldn't that both increase the price of these good to american consumers and weaken the chinese economy even more. >> i didn't say i was going to do it. i would say to them very strongly if you don't start living by the rules -- they're not living by the rules. what they're doing is a disgrace to us. by the way, china is not the only one, but china is the worst abuser of all, and they have to stop. if they don't, we have tremendous power over china. the obama administration doesn't understand that. we have tremendous economic
once that stops, they have a depression the likes of which you have never seen. so we have a lot of power. why should republican voters in iowa, more than half of whom say they're either evangelicals or born-again christians, why should they choose you over ted cruz? >> i tell you, i have formed a agreed bond in iowa. i'm doing very well with the evangelicals. ite protestant, i'm pretty by tierian, and by the way with the tea parties. you see that in the polls. >> why pick you over cruz? >> because i think i will be much better on illegal immigration. i will be much better on security. i will be much better on the military, i will be much better on the economy. the economy is my thing. let me ask you about immigration. cruz says he's tougher than you when it comes to immigration. your policy is you want to deport all of illegals out and let then what you call the good
he says if you're deported, you never get back in. >> he's changed. he also said for the first time we have to build a wall. >> no, he campaigned on that in 2012. i don't know 2012. i can tell you for this whole cycle he just mentioned it three days ago. i'm going to build a wall, we're going to have a strong border. when you start the process, everyone else leaves. the good ones will go through a process like everyone else, but they have to come in legally. not citizenship, but they have to come in legally. that's much tougher than ted. ted was weak on illegal immigration. that's why he and rubio have been fighting who is stronger? they were both weak on it, actually. nobody can compete with me on illegal immigration. nobody. >> there's also the question which you have raise in the last few days about whether or not ted cruz is a natural-born american -- >> i didn't raise it. "the washington post" raised it. they asked me a question.
he was born in canada, he had a canadian citizens, and had a joint citizenship. what i told ted to do is go into court for declaratory judgment. you know, you can't run -- i'm talking about from his standpoint. i did not bring this up. "the washington post" brought it up. >> but some people say you're trolling him. >> what he should do is ask for declaratory judgment. he says it's not an issue. in fact when you raised it, he posted a video of the fonz jumping the shark, and he's kind of laughing -- >> he's not laughing. he's taking it seriously, as he should. and you know what? i think i'm going to win. i don't want to beat him this way. i'm just saying in my opinion, the democrats will bring a lawsuit. if it's ted, the democratless bring a lawsuit. he has to have this worked out. >> honestly, do you have any doubts that ted cruz is a natural-born american?
it depends. does natural born mean born to the land, meaning born on the land? in that case he's not, but nobody knows what it means, and had hasn't been adjudicated or gone to the supreme court. i'm only saying this, and i speak well of ted. i'm just saying ted has to get this problem solved. if he's running again a democrat and they bring a lawsuit, he has a hell of a thing over his head. president obama is making a big push about gun control. you said the other day pretty soon we're not going to be able to get guns. the president responded that's all a conspiracy. >> contrary to claims of some presidential candidates apparently before t meeting, this is not a plot to take away everybody's guns. >> your reaction? >> so president obama has been hitting the second amendment, and he would like to hit it very hard. number one, you shouldn't do it
you should get together with the republicans and the democrats and work something out. that's the way it's supposed to be done. not by the signing of an executive order. now, he's done executive orders, he's done it on the border, all over the place. does he meet with anybody anymore? all he does is sign executive orders. the one on the border was just overturned, who knows what's going on happen, but it's a big legal mess, but you have to get people in the room, talk to them, cajole them, see if you can do something. i have a real problem anytime you start knocking and taking chunks out of the second amendment. if people had guns in california when these two horrible people that were married, however, whoever was radicalized first nobody knows, but they were both radical obviously in the end. had people in that room had guns, a couple of them, it would have been a totally different story.
know, in paris, the toughest gun laws they say in the world or just about, france, the toughest gun lauds in the world, all these people, 130 people killed. had people in those rooms in paris when they were being shot, no guns on the good guys' side, had there been guns there would have been shooting, they would have been gone and it would have been a smaller tragedy than it turned out to be. >> this week you released a short video once against hitting bill clinton on his personal problems. here it is. women's rights are human rights and human rights are women's rights. once and for all, let's keep fighting for opportunity and dignity. >> first of all, you put bill cosby in there, and you have compared bill clinton's problems to bill cosby's -- >> no, inl not doing that. that's really up to the public.
the same sentence. >> it's not up to me. >> as inappropriate as his relationship with monica lewinsky may have been -- >> you're not talking about monica, you're talking about many. >> it was consensual. >> you're talking about many. >> if you read the book, the book has other ones that were horrible, one accusing of rape and other things. hey, look, he was impeached, he lost his law license, couldn't practice law. he to pay a massive fine or massive amount of money to -- whether it's paula jones or whoever. this was all done in the white house, a lot of it was done in the white house. not a good situation. now, had she not mentioned about penchant for sexism for me, i have more respect for women than hillary clinton has. i have more respect than hillary clinton, okay? i will take care of this country far better than hillary, so i thought it was appropriate, to be honest. i thought it was appropriate.
she want i had a penchant for sexism, which i don't, but that's what she said. >> a lot of republican officials say this will backfire, that you're going to make her more popular, once again she's the victim -- >> no, no, she's not a victim. she was -- she -- >> she was an enabler? >> she worked with him. some of the women have been totally destroyed. some of these women have been destroyed, and hellry worked with him. there's no -- there's no feeling sorry for hillary in this situation. all you have to do is look at some of the facts and some of the settlements. >> clinton has refused to respond to your statements, here it is. >> i'm going to let him live in his alternative reality and i'm not going to respond. >> your reaction? >> i can tell you right now during the democrat debate, even though these call it the
democrat debate, she brought the sexism into it penchant for. i said, what's going on over here? then her husband said, i'm going to go out to campaign, so with all of that happening, i think he's fair game. i would say 95% of the people who have looked at it, including the liberal press, has agreed with me. >> in the time we have left, let's do a lightning round, quick questions, quick answers. north korea tested a nuclear weapon this week, they say it was a hydrogen bomb. what would president trump do about north korea? >> i think north korea is a disgrace. in fact i told you a long time ago, they better start looking at that. the iran deal is one of the worst deals i've ever seen with $150 billion and everything else. at least right now -- they'll have one soon, by the way with the stupid agreement, but at least right now they don't have one. north korea has very dangerous weapons of some sort. >> what would you do? >> i would get china, and i
straighten it out. you better straighten it out. if you don't, we're going to have trouble, because we have power. we have trade power over china, and obama doesn't understand. he's not a business person. >> there have been certainly domestic terror incident recently. two refugees who were arrested for trying to support isis in syria. there was a cop who was shot in philly and the person who shot him said he was doing it out of his allegiance to isis. >> we have to be very strong. look, if we're not vigilant in this country, we're not going to have a country left. you look at brussels, what's happening in germany, what's happening in paris, so many places, we have to be vigilant. we hear about a bush done trick, obama doctrine. there a trump doctrine on foreign policy? guiding philosophy? >> yeah, tough, smart, vigilant.
right now, chris we're not respected by anybody, and other people -- i have to tell you, in terms of foreign policy we're losing a fortune, other people have to pay up. and again, when we take care of south korea militarily, when we take care of jenny and all the -- many people don't even know this. when we are protecting all these countries, when we're protecting saudi arabia as an example, saudi arabia was making a billion dollars a day, now it's less because of the oil, but they're still making plenty, okay? they have to pay up. i mean, we're protecting them. they have to pay up. i didn't like what they did, by the way. i thought what they did was not good, all of the executions, but when saudi arabia is making a billion dollars a day and we get peanuts every time we have a problem we have to go and defend them, it's not going to work that way. they have to pay up. you have had remarkable success as a republican candidate, lord knows you surprised me, but there are
actually become the nominee and be in the general election, that you're going to have problems, you're going to have to reach out to hispanics, to minorities, to women, to independents, but you're going to have to move to the center and you're going to have to tone it down. >> look, all i can tell sudden what i can tell you. you said i wouldn't run. in fact you said i don't want him on this program, because he's not going to run. >> i said -- >> not only did i run, i got 42% now in the latest poll and other people have 12 and 2 and 1 and everything else. so i ran, i'm doing well. >> it's not attractive to say "i told you so," mr. trump. >> i understand, but i think i'm going to do well. it shouldn't be hillary because of what she did with the e-mails. frankly she shouldn't be allowed to run. recent polls have shown i'm going to do well. a lot of people are saying if it's trump against hillary, it will be the largest voter turnout in the history of this country, and those extra people,
been part of the process before, are doing it because they're going to vote for trump. so i think we're going to do well. >> mr. trump, thank you. >> thank you. up next, we'll bring in our sunday group to discuss the republican race, and a new problem about hillary clinton's private e-mails. plus what would you like to ask the panel about the trump/cruz birther debate? just go to facebook or twitter @foxnewssunday, and we
air. i have never breathed a breath of air on this planet without being a citizen. it was the process of being born that made me a u.s. citizen. >> senator ted cruz defending himself against claims he may not be eligible to be president, because he was born in canada. it's time for our sunday group syndicated columnist george will. bob woodward of "the washington post." laura ingraham, editor in chief of the website life zat, and analyst juan williams. we asked questions for the panel questioning. rob hogan tweeted this -- why did trump and media insist about talking about another nonissue? stick to real issues. and if place of birth didn't matter with laura?
the united states. ted cruz never renounced his u.s. citizenship. he mother did not live the requisite five years according to canadian law to even request canadians citizenship. as long as ted cruz feels like he has to answer questions about this, i think what's driven him up in the polls in iowa is somewhat diminished, because people who don't follow this all that closely will get their heads wrapped around this issue -- well, wait, he was born in canada. people i do not believe it's a disqualifier. paul clement is one of the smartest minds in washington. we both clerked on the sprk. this is -- this is a joke, according to him. >> one of the things i have to say i enjoyed this week was john mccain saying this might be a legitimate issue.
supporter. >> cruz ishe he going to endorse rubio, and this is mccain getting back at the wacko birds he called cruz famously after the green eggs and ham so lil question. this is the birth certificate for ted cruz's mother documenting the fact she was bore in delaware, clearly one cruz feels he can't ignore this. >> i don't think he can at this point. it's now solidly established as a media story. its everywhere. i do agree with what laura said. i think lots of people, including voters are saying he was born in canada? that's news to me. >> it's not news to us around
them the fact is it's never been litigate litigated, never been to the supreme court. so what we have here is the enemy of my enemy is my friend when it comes to john mccain. john mccain has for love for donald trump. donald trump called him a losing for getting captured in vietnam. what you have here is cruz is a guy who's campaign against fellow republicans through the senate conservative fund. he's a guy that has called mitch mcconnell a liar on the floor so hi own republican caucus have a strong distaste from mccain. >> chickens coming home to roost. >> for ted cruz. on the other hand hillary clinton seems to be cruising to the nomination, but there was a new release of e-mails on friday. this may cause some problems for her. in 2011, when an aide was having trouble sending her material by
instructions. if they can't, turn into nonpaper with no identifying heading, and send nonsecure. bob woodward, why is this important? >> here you have the secretary of state in 2011 saying let's subvert the rules, which say you've got to send -- presumably -- it's very clear from the earlier e-mails that this was a security issue, and i've written about nonpapers or no papers, and this is the way people in the government take the heading off and create something that exists. >> explain that. what's a nonpaper and taking the heading off? >> by taking it off, it's just a piece of paper that has a bunch of paragraphs. there's no classification, there's no subject, so it's not in the system, so no one can discover it through freedom of information act or some sort of subpoena. i mean, look, here is
worked on the staff of the nixon impeachment committee, and what was the lesson? one of the lessons from that? never write anything down. she did years of whitewater investigations, where she was the target, and here many years later she's saying oh, let's subvert the rules and writing it out herself? whether that's some sort of clime, that is not the issue. the issue is she kind of feels immune, she lives in a bubble, and no one is ever going to find this out. well, now we have. >> george, i think it's fair to say that after -- first of all bern seemed to be fading away. does this revive it? >> it keeps it going.
the problem with this as a political issue, the first of an issue is on which a function of its simplicity. when the average voter hears about a server in a closet in colorado, they know what a closet is, but what is a server? this reinforces a preexisting perception about the clintons, whenever they come, they come in a cloud of seaminess, and this is in the cloud of petraeus. a former director of the cia got in trouble for the mishandling of classified information. so at the end of the day, this comes down to the justice department. we know -- we don't think, we know from the i.r.s. example that the holder justice department was eager to be complicit in covering up certainly scanned always. the question is, if the fbi makes a recommendation to the
illegality, then the ball is in loretta lynch's court, and we'll see if she's a different kind of attorney general. >> but going back many years, i have followed the hillary clinton, you know, what she does and biography is character and behavior is character here, and when i read that, i was really surprised that she would type that out and say let's send it nonsecure, and, you know, maybe we'll get answers in fairness to her, it's not clear what this is about, what the talking points were and so forth. >> does it make sense? if it was supposed to be send secure and she, as you say, subverting the law by -- or at least the regulations by sending it nonsecure -- >> the question is, what is it? i'm tried to look into the record and figure out what was going on that day and she was going to give a press briefing. maybe it was talking points for
be not classified information in there. at the same time she was meeting with the russians and maybe there was, so we'll see. >> she hasn't released all of her e-mails. she was supposed to reach a threshold be december 31st, she did not. her staff says they're working hard. you are not allowed under federal law to act as your own declassifier. a gs-15 employee at the nsa -- why are you scowl? do you think there would be a legality issue? >> because the person who did i see if it's classified or not -- >> no, no, no. >> not only has she accepted the state department and judd department -- >> you're saying that hillary clinton's handling of this e-mail situation, that is all cool, this is the way our government is supposed to work? >> i agree with what bob said. >> they said they doesn't know.
the verge of a makejor revolt. >> we should say former u.s. attorney. >> george hit the nail on the head. this goes to the heart of whether we can trust or government to be fully transparent when they're supposed to be appeared properly handle this information and the professionals will have the final say. >> i think you're lost in the weeds on this one. >> that's what you hope. >> i think the voters don't care, and i think jim comey is beyond reproach. >> the voters care about whether whether we're going to find out what she really did. this is one element of it. >> all right. we have to take a break here. see you a little later. up next president obama delivers his last state of the union address. we'll sit down with denis mcdonough to discuss the challenges president obama faces. what do you think of president obama going around congress on gun control. let me know on facebook or on twitter @foxnewssunday and use the #fns.t a real thing?
is this really any better than the one you got last year? if we consolidate suppliers, what's the savings there? so should we go with the 467 horsepower? ...or is a 423 enough? good question. you ask a lot of good questions... i think we should move you into our new fund. sure... ok. but are you asking enough about how your wealth is managed? wealth management at charles schwab. days after the paris attacks, senators came together for a top-secret briefing on the terrorist threat... marco rubio was missing - fundraising in california instead. two weeks later, terrorists struck again in san bernardino... and where was marco? fundraising again in new orleans. over the last 3 years, rubio has missed important national security hearings and missed more total votes than any other senator. politics first: that's the rubio way. right to rise usa
we'll discuss the president obama says his final state of the union address will highlight his accomplishments over the last seven years and look beyond the next election when someone else will be in the oval office. we're joined by the president's chief of staff denis mcdonough. welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> chris, thanks for having me. the white house says the state of the union address will be, quote, nontraditional, let
legislation, but more about the challenges facing the country, which raises the question -- does he not expect to see much through congress this jeer? >> we expect a lot through congress this year. we had a very successful year last year, and we feel good about that, but the president is going to lay out a picture of the country moving forward, focused on the future, not afraid of it and have i optimistic because of what he knows about this country, which is when we draw on everybody 'strength, when everyone has a shot, when we're using our elements of national power to make the world safe, and by the way, when everybody gets their shot at democracy, not just a select few, the sky is the
limit what the people can do and what this country can do. one of the ways he's been moving the country forward is through executive action, not working through congress. i want to take a look at the
actions over the last 14 months. november 2014 carbon emissions deal with china, same month, temporary amnesty for 5 million illegal immigrants. december 2014, normalized relations with cuba. ual 2015, iran nuclear deal. december 2015, paris climate deal. this week tighten gun
controls. mr. mcdonough, whatever happened to article i of the constitution that says all the legislative powers herein granted should be vested in a congress of the united states? >> yeah. well, look i was happy to see that list. when i was on your show a year ago, you asked if the president was down, that he basically had lost the election, and everything you just laid out. i think he got all that done last year, which of course we're very proud of. most particularly this climate deal which will protect the country and people for years to country and the iran nuclear deal -- >> but you're avoiding my point.
>> but he did it on his own. he didn't do what the constitution says, which is observe article i that all those legislative powers reside in the congress. >> let me come back to article i in a second and particularly the war power. >> i'd like to talk about generally about legislative power. >> sure. we finished a deal a budget deal allowing us to invest $50 billion above what congress wanted to do in things like middle-class prosperity, middle-class economics. we got a tax extenders deal with congress, because we wanted to make sure that's invested -- >> you're not answering my question. >> and they said to until if they want to do exert until the power whether they wanted to be heard on any questions. they decided they does. they're not self-executing powers. >> but they have to say that all legislative powers are vested in the congress in which they don't
whatever he wants? it doesn't say that. >> let's take the guns announcement from earlier this week. very simple question. everybody -- in fact many of the if republicans and. tox commutators have urged us to enforce the laws we have. the president clarified, using guidance from the attorney general exactly what the law expects, a law that was passed by congress three decades ago. he asked for 200 new agents to enforce the law. i don't know why this is objectionable or a constitutional question. i don't think it's a constitutional question. this is a question of protecting the american people, 30,000 of whom last year died from gun violence. that's too many. let's talk about another issue coming up. the president made it pretty clear in his year-end press conference, if congress doesn't took close guantanamo, that he will. take a look.
has definitively said no to a well thought out plan with numbers attached to it before we say anything definitive about my executive authority here. >> but congress has repeatedly prohibited him from transferring prisoners from guantanamo to the united states, and in fact just this november the president signed a defense bill which barred him again. question -- why isn't that the end of the argument? >> maybe you and i just watched a different clip. the president said his was going to work with congress, present a plan and then make a final determination. did we watch something totally different? let me be clear. the president has said we will close gitmo because it's bad for our security and it's too costly. $4 million per year per detainee. that's a travesty.
position to close that facility, because it strengthens us. the president feels an obligation to his successor to close that. that's why we're going to do it. >> you are going to do it. >> sure we are. >> whether congress says yes, sir or not. >> the president said he will work with congress and we'll make a final -- >> it's not an if/then guy. >> no, he -- >> again you and i may have watched a different clip. >> wait and see what they do before i wait for my executive authority. >> correct. >> bur you're going on to say we're going to close it. and we're going to do it because it's too expensive. much more importantly it's not in our national interests. >> the office of the director of national intelligence says that 30% of the detainees that we have transferred so far are either confirmed or suspected of returning to the battlefield.
them people who were clearly wouldn't be in guantanamo if they didn't have some role on the war on terror, particularly the ones who are still here, why help our enemy in the middle of the war on terror? >> this is why we, from day one, went deep into the question of gitmo to look at each of the individual detainees and also worked very closely with our allies so that when we transfer them into their custody or into their care or into their watch, that we make sure that we have a rock-solid agreement for them to do that. those 30% -- >> but the -- >> those 30%, chris, go back to the start of this which the overwhelming majority transferred under the previous administration with insufficient protection. that's why we changed the policy, how we handle them. that's why that number has gotten better. >> none of the ones you have released have gone back? >> i didn't say that. i say we do this with considerable care pursuant to arrangements with our allies to
that fight. that's exactly what we're going to do. >> you had a huge fight with the previous defense secretary chuck hagel, who said you were pushing him to release people he wasn't comfortable releasing. >> the secretary of defense only signs orders that he's comfortable with signing. i eet let the secretaries of defense defend their positions one way or another on that. what i'm not willing to do and what the president is not willing to do is make this problem, which has consumed enormous amounts of time and important relationships with our countries for the next president. he feels an obligation to the next president. he will fix this so they don't have ton confronted with the 15i78 sort of challenges. in the time left, lightning round. iran has violated a ban on ballistic missile 30th said we're going to send you, congress, a list of sanctions to punish them.
missile testing. hours later saided at moral said no, we're not going to send you a list. >> we we sent them a list of characters who are -- mind if i answer the question? we will issue those sanctioning and those designations at the propose time, no question about it. >> what's the appropriate time? >> we'll issue the designations when it's time. >> but no immediate plan to do so? >> we'll issue them when it's time. will the administration push to extradite el chapo quickly back to this country? >> i'm not going to get hat of any conversations the department of justice may be having. >> but the effort to bring him to justice stands? >> we're very proud of the record we've had working with our colombian and mexican
increase the number of extraditions into this judicial temperature until this president. we'll continue to do that. i will say we face a dramatic problem as it relates to heroin addiction in this country. we will continue to press until we get that back in the box. >> would you like to see el chapo in an american prison. >> i would like to see him in a prison, and see that the bragging he did last night can't do. the standoff in oregon, are you going to let the protesters continue to occupy that territory. >> i'm going to be very careful to say here, because i'm not going to add anything into this. it's an enforcement matter the fbi is working on with the interior department and they're doing a fine job. >> can you let them occupy the
>> i think the fib and department of interior are handling this very well. mr. mcdonough, thank you for answering some questions and stillfully not answering others. >> thanks for having me here. appreciate it. you can watch the steve union address on tuesday, and i'll seal you on your local fox station. up next, north korea tests another weapon. they say it was a hydrogen bomb. we'll bring back the panel to discuss what the u.s. response
marco rubio thinks it's unfair to criticize him for missing votes. "but i am going to miss votes, i'm running for president." but he's been missing votes for a long time. "one third of all of his missed votes in 2015 were missed before he announced he was running for president." over the last three years, marco rubio has missed more votes... than any other senator. washington politician marco rubio. doesn't show up for work, but wants a promotion? right to rise usa is responsible
test of a nuclear bomb. we're back with the panel. this is the fourth test, the third on president obama's watch, but the obama policy towards dealing with the regime is what the president has called, quote, strategic patience. laura, how is that working out? >> "the daily beast" wrote a fabulous piece examining how foreign policy experts, beyond conservatives, republicans, brookings institution, are now squarely blaming the obama foreign policy for the situation we're in right now. it's gone beyond the partisan bickering, to people who spent their lifetime studying north korea, saying look this strategic patience has been a united states. >> because? goes forward. it looks like from the reporting, and bob might know more about this, we were surprised by this test. then there was question of whether it was a successful test.
bystanders once again when something as important as this happens in asia when the president promised a major pivot to asia at the beginning of his administration. for all of denis mcdonough's crowing about all they have done, this
pivot never really happened. >> but juan, to be fair to obama, clinton and bush 43 tried to negotiate with the north korean regime. that doesn't work. president obama has tried to ig not kim jong-un. that hasn't worked either. what can the u.s. do? can you really say obama messed up what was going on? >> i don't think it's fair to say he messed up, but i think it is fair to say he'sen intannive. some nukes were pulled out of south korea south korea because you would hope that north korea would reciprocate in kind. the question is what influence do we have to exert on china to
on north korea? right now china this week said they're very unhappy with what the north koreans did. it's a threat to them. so china, the question is, why aren't you acting, china? you provide food, energy to north korea. they are their patron. when you see this kind of behavior, it pushes the united states into a position where we could say to japan, where we could say to north korea, to south korea, go ahead, build nuclear weapons to confront the north koreans. that's not in china's interests. that's the only leverage we have at this point, going after china. >> juan? >> you talk to people-- bob? >> the idea that you have this
obviously willing to flaunt it, the back channels with chinese and others. >> we have tried that with clinton and bush 43, but it doesn't work. >> the intelligence people are aware this is a big giant problem, and there are thing that can be done that are not overt. >> all right. since this panel is a democracy, sort of, we're going to call an audible here. you wanted to talk, bob, about the interview i did with denis mcdonough. >> yes, i thought it was very revealing. first of all, in fairness, obama has had a much better year. the deal on the budget really is important, and it stabilized things. unfortunately mcdonough sounds very, very defensive and nonresponsive on things, but i think the bottom line, and the important bottom line here is it
power in the presidency. it's gone up from nixon to obama. obama has more power, will exercise more power. a lot of this is constitutionally doubtful, as the -- as george will and laura i'm sure will say, but the consequence can do only certain things. the main thing is cut off funding. that's where they control things. if they start cutting off funding on some of these executive actions, you'll see real conflict. but obama's probably going to get his way on these sanctions. >> let me ask you on the broader issue, as somebody who cut his teeth talking about nixon and the reporting on nixon and the abuse of power, does it trouble you at all to see this self-proclaimed expansion of executive authority under obama? >> sure, but to us as journalists, the important lesson is we're going to have a
and let's make sure we tell people who that might be and not -- we've got to cover -- >> that's not my question. the question i'm asking, and i want to get to george to this, the powers and abilities of president to, i'll say it, run rough shod over congress. >> you raised the issue, article i, which clearly says congress has the power on this. sure, it's p troubling, but the reality is that obama is doing it. >> george? >> absent the power of the purse, all other article i powers are vitiated and negligible, so congress has to reframe its budget process, start sending instead of enormous end of session government shutdown/cliff
appropriations bills, so you can punish parts of the congress without threatening chaos. wood row wilson said a president is -- i don't have a candidate yet, but i will be the first one that adopts the opposite of army's slogan. i want a president to be less that he can be, a constitutional et key, some understanding of the manners of the separation of powers. >> don't you think, george, just like security keeping getting -- it never goes back, just keeps getting more intrusive as we go on in the rld we're living in. when you get something like this, a president expanding the definition of what he can do on his own, you can never turn back. >> particularly when he's said he can do anything. mr. mcdonough used a wonderful phrase, we determined players, we're going to let congress be heard. congress isn't to be heard.
>> what you guys are missing, total context here. there would be chaos. chaos. congress is doing nothing, zero. congress obstructs this president -- >> it's his best friend, what are you talking about? >> the president responds, and you sea why is this president trying to -- he's trying to do something for the american people. >> where have the republicans successfully blocked president obama. the number one thin president obama wanted, the first six months was to trade promotion authority. they got it, paul ryan did big op-eds on it. they worked with him consistently the one thing obama wanted was the administration funded through the next year republicans gave him a $1.1 trillion spending bill thatport people did not read, the republicans have been terrible at checking the president's unbridled authority.
fighting in the middle east, yet this congress has not even acted to give authority to this president to go after isis. let's talk about the failure of congress? talk about congress abandons -- >> congress should vote on -- >> oh, thank you. >> all i'm saying is we can talk about the constitutional separation of powers, checks and balances, but it's up to the opposition party to act like it is a check. >> and we're going to leave it there. thank you, panel. see you next sunday. up next we go on the trail as campaign attack ads fill the
hampshire. with 22 days until iowa, the presidential campaign has entered an intense new phase with attack ads jamming tvs in early voting states. here's a look at the air wars on the trail. in new hampshire marco rubio and chris christie are jockeying. the real issue -- who is the real conserveativeconservative? >> crist christie obama care expanding is enough. >> christie fired back at marco rubio. >> it shows how inexperienced he is and how unprepared he is to be our candidate against
she'll pat him on the head and cut his heart out. the super-pac, which questions whether he's up -- >> i know you have a debate, but you have to get this fantasy football thing right. okay. >> in iowa the battle is among social conservatives. rick santorum who won the caucuses l.a. time is going after this year's front-runner. >> you want someone to read one hell of a bedtime story? ted cruz is the guy. rick santorum is your president. >> jeb bush's super-pac has sent millions attacking donald trump, but so far it's not helping bush or hurting trump. >> they said isis was contained and this isn't our problem. >> why not let isis and syria fight. >> he says isis is not our fight. really? >> as for trump who has trashed almost everyone on the trail, his campaign released its first
shockingly they decided to stay above the fray. >> politicians can pretend it's something else, but donald trump calls it radical islamic terrorism. on with you new hampshire tv station, 25% of all commercial time is now going to campaign ads. as the voting gets closer, it will only get worse. a quick program note. next week i'll sit down with ted cruz for a sunday exclusive live here in washington. that's it for today.
sharyl: hello, i'm sharyl attkisson. welcome to "full measure." today, new information about what may be the most confounding mystery surrounding the benghazi controversy -- why no outside u.s. military help came to the rescue as terrorists battered two compounds and the americans inside over nearly eight hours. four americans were killed, including ambassador chris stevens and diplomat sean smith, along with glen doherty and ty woods, both former navy seals. in recent days, the house benghazi committee heard from key figures in closedoor testimony. david petraeus and former defense secretary leon panetta. hear from a third official that few have probably heard of --nse department chief of staff, whose